B&W film vs. converting color scans to greyscale

[6x7]

I'm doing a hybrid thing:  shooting in medium format, having the negs scanned when processed (or doing it myself) and then doing post production in Photoshop. Just getting back into it after a long hiatus. My question is, does anyone have thoughts about shooting with B&W film vs. shooting with color negative film and then converting the scans to B&W?

[digitaldog]

Yeah, don't use color; it severely limits the conversion to B&W options available to you. 

 

[glen_h]

Not so long ago, I had the book "Vision and Art" from the library, after someone here recommended it.

One that it mentions, is that "Panatomic-X" is the black and white film with, as well as I remember, the most accurate conversion of color to black and white.

 

This distinction isn't mentioned all that often, though for many years Kodak black and white films said on the box "Use blue bulbs for flash".

In earlier years, people would use clear bulbs, as the film wouldn't notice the wrong color.

But we expect the right gray tone for each color.  Yellows will be lighter, reds and blues, darker.

And, it seems, the color of the light source matters.

 

Also, in the early years of Kodacolor (before -X and II), people would use clear flashbulbs and non-blue photoflood lamps, assuming that color balance could be fixed later. 

It was then found that one can't optimally correct color balance later.

(With slide films, everyone knew that from the beginning.)

 

Assuming that the black and white film was designed right, it should do a good job.

With color, you have to find the conversion, the multipliers for each color layer.

You can, of course, do the correction yourself, but then again, you need to know when you have it right.

 

 

[SCL]

I assume you're not shooting medium format digital, but rather with film, and that is where the question comes from. In film I shoot only B&W because I personally think I like B&W outcome better than shooting color film and converting to B&W, probably for the reasons cited. But it really comes down to the color sensitivity of film and developers used. So, you might want to do some research to optimize your results with the least cost.

[6x7]

Thank you all for your insights.  And yes, SCL, I'm shooting film.  Sorry to not make that clear.  The reason I'm thinking about this option is because I'm using a Pentax 6x7, so interchangeable backs is not an option.  And I don't want to lug around two bodies.  But there have been many times when I'm in the middle of a B&W roll and wishing I could switch to color.  So using color film most of the time could be a solution.  Can anyone recommend a plugin or stand-alone program (Windows) to give me the most control and options in converting a color digital image to B&W?

[John Seaman]

I use Silver Efex Pro 2 from Nik Efex, which is a plug in to Photoshop. It seems to be more effective that the BW conversions available in image editors like Photoshop. Nik Efex used to be a free download, I'm not sure what its status is right now.

The only advantage of shooting in colour and converting is that it gives additional flexibility in terms of adjusting the levels of the different channels to change the appearance of the image. For example, with a red and green striped shirt, the red and green might be exactly the same shade in monochrome. But with a colour image, you could adjust the levels of the colours to differentiate them in greyscale.

[digitaldog]

Convert color to B&W: Photoshop, Lightroom Classic. 

http://www.schewephoto.com/workshop/Art-Black-White-DPP.pdf

[paddler4]

1 hour ago, John Seaman said:

The only advantage of shooting in colour and converting is that it gives additional flexibility in terms of adjusting the levels of the different channels to change the appearance of the image. For example, with a red and green striped shirt, the red and green might be exactly the same shade in monochrome. But with a colour image, you could adjust the levels of the colours to differentiate them in greyscale.

Exactly what I would have posted. And as Dog's post suggests, you can do this very easily in Lightroom or Photoshop. I don't do many conversions, but I do them all in Lightroom. I find the targeted adjustment option a powerful addition to manually adjusting individual colors.

Nik hasn't been free for a long time, and the old free version no longer works on my Windows/Adobe setup. 

What I can't speak to is the raw material, that is, the qualities of the B&W and color negatives. I shot film for decades but stopped entirely once digital became powerful, so I have no knowledge of current films.

[AlanKlein]

8 hours ago, 6x7 said:

Thank you all for your insights.  And yes, SCL, I'm shooting film.  Sorry to not make that clear.  The reason I'm thinking about this option is because I'm using a Pentax 6x7, so interchangeable backs is not an option.  And I don't want to lug around two bodies.  But there have been many times when I'm in the middle of a B&W roll and wishing I could switch to color.  So using color film most of the time could be a solution.  Can anyone recommend a plugin or stand-alone program (Windows) to give me the most control and options in converting a color digital image to B&W?

I use Lightroom or NIK Silver Efex.  Both are very good. 

[hjoseph7]

On 6/27/2023 at 10:06 AM, 6x7 said:

I'm doing a hybrid thing:  shooting in medium format, having the negs scanned when processed (or doing it myself) and then doing post production in Photoshop. Just getting back into it after a long hiatus. My question is, does anyone have thoughts about shooting with B&W film vs. shooting with color negative film and then converting the scans to B&W?

A few years ago I scanned some color film(forget which one it was...) using my Epson 750 scanner, then I converted to Black & White using the software that came with the scanner.  I got some excellent results ! All the Hues were there and I did not have to do any complicated channel processing.   

[AlanKlein]

Shooting color gives you an option for the final image of choosing color or BW.

[JDMvW]

18 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

Shooting color gives you an option for the final image of choosing color or BW.

Especially if your scans are in RAW.

[digitaldog]

This should read: Yeah, IF you don't use color; it severely limits the conversion to B&W options available to you.

Shoot (raw) color! Convert in Lightroom Classic. Simple. 

[glen_h]

In either case, you should use the appropriate color temperature light source, and color balance filters if needed.

Black and white films are designed to give the right gray scale.

As noted, according to at least one author, Panatomic-X gives the best gray scale.

Because of the requirements on sensitizing dyes, color films won't give the most accurate black and white balance.

You can correct some of that, but not all of it, later.

[digitaldog]

 

 

15 hours ago, glen_h said:

In either case, you should use the appropriate color temperature light source, and color balance filters if needed.

Black and white films are designed to give the right gray scale.

As noted, according to at least one author, Panatomic-X gives the best gray scale.

Because of the requirements on sensitizing dyes, color films won't give the most accurate black and white balance.

You can correct some of that, but not all of it, later.

CCT (color temp) is a massive range of possible colors. So what are you proposing? 

Accurate black and white balance is what and measured colorimetrically how? 

[glen_h]

7 hours ago, digitaldog said:

 

 

CCT (color temp) is a massive range of possible colors. So what are you proposing? 

Accurate black and white balance is what and measured colorimetrically how? 

 

When I was young, Verichrome Pan said right on the box, "Use blue bulbs for flash".

As well as I know it, for many years people didn't worry about color balance for black and white films.

That is, it would be close enough.

 

But also, in the early years of color negative film, people also didn't worry about color balance.

(That is, color temperature.)

It was thought that it could be corrected with filters at print time, so didn't need to be right.

It seems, though, that isn't quite true.  It does matter, and so now we have tungsten blanced

color negative films.  (Well, maybe not anymore.  I have some rolls of VPL, though.)

 

The point of the comment was to use daylight balanced sources with usual films.

Blue flash bulbs, blue photoflood lamps, or appropriate filters. 

 

If, on the other hand, you want specific unusual color balance, that is fine.

 

[digitaldog]

No color balance isn't color temperature (CCT), but we can go there if you wish to understand what CCT and daylight is. 

The series of D-illuminants (series of daylight, not CCT), adopted by the CIE in 1971, is based on 622 measurements from the early 1960s taken worldwide; the data were combined/averaged.

[glen_h]

1 hour ago, digitaldog said:

No color balance isn't color temperature (CCT), but we can go there if you wish to understand what CCT and daylight is. 

The series of D-illuminants (series of daylight, not CCT), adopted by the CIE in 1971, is based on 622 measurements from the early 1960s taken worldwide; the data were combined/averaged.

 

I suppose so.

But in the case of film, we (at least used to) have a few choices, such as type A, B, F, and G.

Type A for 3400K movie lights, type B for 3200K photofloods, type F for clear flash.

As well as I know, type G is a compromise that is supposed to work everywhere.

And there are filters to convert from one to the other, for most combinations.

 

I didn't mean it any more complicated than that.